Tuesday, June 22, 2010

What makes Malcolm Fraser sad?

I wrote an article earlier this month about political distinctions within the Liberal Party (overseas readers might not know, but this is the more right-wing of the two major parties here).

I noted that one of the main distinctions is between purists (those who want the party to represent liberalism alone and who are opposed to conservatism) and fusionists (those who, wrongly in my opinion, believe that the party can harmonise liberalism and conservatism).

I identified the former prime minister, Malcolm Fraser, as one of the purists. And in today's Herald Sun he confirmed my choice. He explained his recent decision to quit the Liberal Party this way:

the Liberal Party has become increasingly conservative ... It's something also that I'm very sad about. If it's possible for any good to come out of a resignation ... I would like it to be that Liberals ... must fight harder to fight for Liberal values within the party itself.

If they don't, more conservative elements of the party will become stronger and stronger and more pervasive and the basic Liberal philosophy on which the party was founded by Menzies will be cast further and further into the ash heap.

Clearly Fraser is a liberal purist: he is someone who sees conservatism as the enemy of the Liberal Party tradition and who is saddened by the presence of conservatism within the party.

Which says something about the politics of Australia in the 1970s when Fraser won office. In that decade, Fraser was thought to be on the conservative end of the political spectrum. P.G. Tiver wrote a book on the Australian Liberal Party in 1978 and this is how he describes Fraser:

Fraser's own ideology is, along the liberal-conservative continuum, conservative on all major points, and more strikingly conservative than Menzies'.

And this is from a report on a Liberal Party meeting in 1974:

There were some fears at the start of the meeting that the philosophical differences between "trendies" such as Peacock and Chipp and conservatives such as Fraser and Forbes might create a problem ...

The fact that an anti-conservative like Fraser could be considered a conservative "on all major points" shows just how limited Australian politics was in the 1970s. The most "conservative" political figure was someone who was utterly unsympathetic to conservatism.

Little wonder then that liberalism marched on with little opposition in Australia throughout that period.

Liberalism has been around for so long, that little about it is novel. For instance, liberals want to maximise individual autonomy. But this leads to an ideological tension. Some liberals believe that the best way to maximise individual autonomy is through a laissez-faire principle in which there is minimal government interference. But other liberals think that people can't be autonomous unless they have the resources to put their preferred choices into effect and that the state should therefore intervene to create equality whether of opportunity or outcome.

In the 1970s in Australia, the first option was labelled as conservative and the second as socialist or ameliorative. It's in this sense, and this limited sense alone, that Fraser was a conservative. In a strongly "socialist" political climate he held to the so-called "conservative" option. For instance in 1975 he declared that,

I have no intention of leading a Government which is only going to socialise Australia at a slower pace than Labor.

And in the same year he wrote:

there are serious limitations on the ability of the government to produce the better life

And this, in the political climate of the time, was enough to put him at the most "conservative" end of politics, when all he had really done was to prefer one liberal option over another.

Fraser has never been a genuine conservative. In a previous post I wrote of Fraser that,

Way back in 1968 Fraser gave a speech in which he noted that one Australian university, as an entrance requirement, "recognises the following languages - French, German, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Italian, Russian and Japanese". He criticised this selection by claiming that,
the list as a whole is one belonging to the last century except for one of the languages mentioned.
According to Fraser, the European languages did not belong in the twentieth century. Only the Japanese one did.

Fraser hasn't changed his politics. He's been pushing for open borders for decades. He's not only a liberal but a radical one. He feels no connection at all to any national heritage or inherited identity.

To be a genuine conservative, there has to be a tradition, or some aspect of a tradition, you think worth conserving. Fraser demonstrated a lack of attachment to the West itself back in 1968, a declaration of non-conservatism if ever there was one.

55 comments:

  1. Some liberals believe that the best way to maximise individual autonomy is through a laissez-faire principle in which there is minimal government interference.

    Government interference tends to lead to socialism (or fascism) and feminism. All three of which attempt to create an unnatural order, and restrict freedoms to accomplish that.

    So truly liberalizing things in an advanced society -- leaving people up to their own devices -- would naturally incline the populace to religious patriarchy and entrepreneurial growth. Which is why I'm a libertarian, as I consider those to be goods worth pursuing.

    In such a society, choices aren't as limited by government, but rather by the combined effects of risk-analysis and natural consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Alte,

    I'd certainly prefer less state interference. But the example of Fraser shows that the non-statist option isn't enough by itself.

    If your starting point is a belief that the individual should be unimpeded in determining his own self, then anything outside of individual self-determination will be thought of negatively as an impediment to individual freedom and self-realisation.

    And the list of impediments will be long and significant. It will include notions of a common good; a communal identity; objective morality; inherited moral codes; sex roles; sex distinctions; natural forms of family life and so on.

    So you can be a libertarian and still end up with a world view which is strongly hostile to traditionalism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bob Menzies made a telling comment to Bob Santamaria many years ago.

    "The DLP was what I imagined the Liberal Party to be."

    ReplyDelete
  4. So you can be a libertarian and still end up with a world view which is strongly hostile to traditionalism.

    Yes, but it is possible to be a libertarian in the sense that you believe strongly in subsidiarity. In devolving the power of the state down to other institutions (the church, community, family, etc.)

    In that sense, I am a political libertarian but not a libertine. I don't think "anything goes", I just don't think the state should be directing everything and limiting my personal freedom to PC-goals. I just don't sanction a totalitarian state, which is what one always ends up with as government grows and collects power. It's time we all take sides: bigger or smaller government.

    You could probably eliminate 80% of government's powers without weakening the state enough to induce anarchy. We have a very structured society that would step in and make up for the loss.

    If we do it now, of course. If the family completely breaks down, then reducing government would lead to anarchy. That is why socialists like growing government; it weakens all other forms of governance and leadership and helps them consolidate power. Destroy fatherhood, destroy the Church, destroy neighborhoods. Turn everyone into individuals and then they're easier to control and manipulate. They have no where else to turn, no allies to join forces with.

    For instance, if the local public schools shut down forever this summer, our local Catholic school, and the various private schools and homeschooling co-ops could get an alternative up-and-running before the school year starts up in the fall. It would be hard, but they could do it. But if they ban homeschooling and close down private or religious schools, the children would be helpless when the schools closed, so the parents will be desperate to keep the schools open, regardless of the cost or the sacrifices required in return.

    That is how totalitarianism works. That is how it creeps up on us and turns us into slaves of the state.

    If the state closed all income transfers and child-support collection systems, don't you know that the illegitimate birth rate would plummet down to next to nothing? Fathers would come back into style in a big way, because without fathers children wouldn't eat. No woman wants to watch her children starve, so she'd be inclined to get the child a father first, and make sure she has societal protections (through marriage) that keep him around.

    If you want families and churches to come back into style in a big way, then you have to eliminate their competition: government. I just don't see any way around that. There will be no return to patriarchy unless men are handed much more power. Otherwise they are just paper tigers, and in a permanently precarious position.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Alte, I agree with your arguments in favour of limiting the role of the state. However, most libertarians are political moderns who reject common goods such as family, church or communal traditions. What many libertarians look forward to with the dismantling of the state are not traditional goods but open borders, a free trade in drugs and moral libertinism.

    So I don't think it's enough to make the argument for a smaller state. There has to be an upfront defence of traditional goods and a critique of political modernity - which is what a traditionalist politics sets out to do.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Alte,

    You should really read about Libertarians before you call yourself one.

    http://www.vdare.com/antle/100324_immigration.htm

    I've found that most libertarians are not traditional conservatives and are hostile to christianity.
    Basically they are the intelligent white men who are smart enough to know something is wrong with the US but who refuse to realize this is a racial and religious war we're fighting.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You know I post these articles and I do wish someone would comment on them..

    So Alte please read the article and comment on it!

    We have mainstream consertaves, neocons, paleocons, and libertarians.

    I think I'm a paleocon in the Pat Buchanan vein.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There has to be an upfront defence of traditional goods and a critique of political modernity - which is what a traditionalist politics sets out to do.

    You know that I am on board with that, Mark. But once you have made that defense, you have to decide how you will order government. And libertarian principles appear, to me, to be the best way to order government. I am very clear on what those principles are, and I am convinced that they are the best method for achieving our goals.

    I've found that most libertarians are not traditional conservatives and are hostile to christianity.

    Most Westerners "are not traditional conservatives and are hostile to Christianity". As a Catholic housewife, I can assure you that we are a dying breed among the general populace. Soon they shall stuff us and mount us on display in museums.

    Our Founding Fathers were libertarians, in the original sense of the word (classical liberalism, not libertinism). Why should I abandon a policy that clearly worked, just because some nihilists have joined the crew? There are nihilists everywhere, and they are very loud. There were nihilists back then, and the Fathers didn't back down just because the peanut gallery wouldn't shut up.

    It is true that many think libertarianism would result in sexual free-for-all or a permanent-pot-party. But that is to deny that actions have natural consequences, and that we reap what we sow. Libertarianism can work to advance Christian patriarchy if one is merely hard enough when going about it. You have to be willing to allow people to suffer quite a bit for their bad decisions; to make an example of them.

    It is here that most traditionalists balk, I find. They are trying to create a Utopia upon Earth, where nobody ever suffers anything terrible. They wish to eliminate natural consequences, to use the state to distribute charity, and mitigate the wages of sin.

    Furthermore, I am a black woman, but that does not mean that I can't agree with Mark on many topics. I support the policies that I believe are the best ones for advancing my goals, and those of my Church.

    I am not a conservative, as I am not trying to preserve the "status quo". I'm trying to remake the government into something useful. A mighty task which requires quite revolutionary thinking. Tinkering around the edges will have little to no effect, as we've seen in the past.

    Ergo Libertarianism. Let us not be lukewarm.

    ReplyDelete
  9. A favourite cheshut among alternative right wing circles: is libertarianism compatible with conservatism?

    This depends a lot on how you define autonomy. If I autonomously join an non-autonomous organisation, or make decisions which violate the principles of automomy like refusing to associate with people of a certain sex or creed, or say negative things about autonomy, am I violating the autonomy of others and is the government correct in restricting me from expressing anti-autonomy?

    For most mainstream libertarians today, the answer is that all expressions of non-autonomy, undermine individual autonomy and should be restricted or discouraged. A few marginalised, 'paleo-libertarians' disagree with this, but they have even less political influence that traditional conservatives.

    Of course even if libertarianism in its classic sense is compatible with conservativism, libertarians need to explain why classical liberalism in practice has given way to progressive liberalism. Government interference per se might led to fascism but it only leads to feminism, communism or humanist totalitarianism when it is combined with liberal ideology of personal autonomy. Fascists don't believe in equality only social cohesion and making sacrifices for the common good.

    My view is that it has a lot to do with the fact that many classical liberals, including Locke and Mill, share the liberal belief in equality of potential and people who believe in equality of potential will tend to abandon classical liberalism and opt for progressive liberalism.

    Locke's promotion of the social contract between the individual and the state as the basic of political polity doesn't help much either.

    Historically governments were formed by families joining forces to make governments to protect themselves from outsiders (exiled family members and ethnic aliens). Individuals don't make social contracts in a state of nature when there is no one to enforce them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "My view is that it has a lot to do with the fact that many classical liberals, including Locke and Mill, share the liberal belief in equality of potential and people who believe in equality of potential will tend to abandon classical liberalism and opt for progressive liberalism. "

    Woah I love that. Good post Mike.

    This is why I'm a traditional conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi,

    Frazer's period was a little before my time but I think its fair to say that Frazer was thought in the early to late 70's to be a conservative. His primeminstership was however noted for polices on the acceptance of large numbers of Vietnamese refugees, criticism of South African apartheid as well as the support for Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

    The modern Frazer, champion of compassion and critic of the liberal party, however, seems to have been a reinvention after he lost office. When he was then considered by those on the right (especially economic right) to be a do nothing leader. Hewson was in the same vein, the famous ecomonic "dry" remade as a champion for social justice. You lose the right so to speak and then look for a new constituency on the left.

    Why these guys should attempt to claim Menzies as their intellectual leader though, the same Menzies who tried to outlaw the communist party, seems to me to be bizarre.

    ReplyDelete
  12. libertarians need to explain why classical liberalism in practice has given way to progressive liberalism

    But that is not what happened. Classical liberalism (the Founders) gave way to traditional conservatism (Victorian era) and then to progressive liberalism (Modern Era).

    It was the conservatives who concentrated the powers in order to serve their Christo-Utopian ideals, completely forgetting that Christians aren't supposed to legislate virtue. People smoking pot or getting drunk in the privacy of their own home, for example, is a vice and not a crime.

    Traditional conservatives wish to punish people for their vices, even if those vices do not cause the person to trespass against others. But if people are not free to sin, how can they ever become virtuous? Free will is necessary for us to develop and display virtue. Isn't that part of Jesus' message; that it is our choice to follow him, and that those who choose to do so shall have eternal life?

    Furthermore, most traditional conservatives (let's ignore the fact that many traditionalists are actually libertarians-in-denial) wish for the state to remain rather powerful so that they can use it to enforce their morality upon the populace. That's what happened in the past. But what if somebody else comes to power?

    Well then. Welcome the rise of progressive liberalism. And that is how we went from libertarianism to progressivism. We used traditional conservatism as a jumping stone. Traditional conservatives were "useful idiots", in a sense.

    To see how this happens, take education as an example.

    -- The libertarian says that there shall be no government interference in the education of children. At all. Barring severe neglect or abuse, parents should be left alone to do what they think is best. However, this means that some children will get a sore deal.

    -- So the traditional conservatives step in to "save the children" (they love to save children, which is why there are so many men locked up in debtor's prisons for missing child support payments). They announce that there will be neighborhood schools financed through property taxes. It's only meant for the most needy children, of course. (Just as divorce laws are only to protect battered wives, and welfare is just meant for widows. Of course.)

    To ensure that all needy children are being taken care of, all parents must come and register their children and prove that they are adequately educating them. Otherwise, the children will be enrolled in the neighborhood schools.

    It's "for the children", you see, so who can be against it? If you're against it, then you're a heartless libertarian who doesn't care that there are helpless children not learning their ABC's. (The fact that libertarians donate more than people of any political leaning to private charities and churches, is tossed aside as irrelevant. Libertarians are against tax-based welfare, not private charity.)

    -- Enter the Progressives. "Look at all of those backward hicks and religious fanatics educating their own children. Nothing good will ever come of this! We should make the neighborhood schools mandatory, so that all children are assured a decent education." And homeschooling is summarily banned. Private schools are regulated. Everybody is happen, and the children have been properly saved.


    You see how that progresses?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anytime you give power to the state, you welcome it to later abuse that power. Therefor, you should be severe in restricting state powers to the absolute bare minimum. It is true that some will suffer, some will sink into debauchery, and some will be left behind. That is the price paid for freedom.

    Let us all remember that the Christian West rose to power during an age of unprecedented freedom and exploration. An age of creative destruction, tight-knit family bonds, and hardy communities. Those are all the products of liberty.

    You don't get something for nothing, Mark. I see you advocating a return to patriarchy, an increase in Western-Christian birth rates, a return to chastity and modesty. But you don't really want it. Not really. Not enough.

    If you want patriarchy (the basis for all of the things that you so admire and desire), you have to give individual men power and allow them to do largely as they like. That is the simple truth, distasteful as you may find it.

    Our lives are already micro-controlled, so there is not much additional power to be had. Therefore, the power has to be taken away from whomever has it right now. That is the government. If you want patriarchy, you have to weaken the government considerably. The weaker the government, the stronger the patriarchy.

    I don't see how there is any way around that. I don't see how we can have our cake and eat it to. What are your concrete ideas? Restricting immigration? Lecturing people on morality and admonishing them to "be good". Do you think that will really do the job? Do you not see that radical solutions are necessary for our modern problems?

    I'm with Patrick Henry on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Alte, your argument is original but doesn't accurately describe the history.

    There was no era of traditionalist conservatism between classical and progressive liberalism.

    In fact, those of a more conservative bent of mind in the 1800s were deeply pessimistic. They saw the Zeitgeist, the spirit of the times, as liberal and the most they hoped to be able to do was to delay its onward march.

    Just like today the media and the leading public intellectuals were liberal and therefore the political climate too was framed by liberalism.

    The most popular public intellectual from the 1850s was John Stuart Mill who combined aspects of classical and progressive liberalism.

    And the shift toward a progressive liberalism was a logical one. If you believe that "liberty", understood as individual autonomy, is the key good in life, the one that defines us as human, then it will be thought a blow to social justice and to human equality if some do not enjoy the same conditions of autonomy as others.

    Even those who identify as classical liberals today find it very difficult to resist making this step in logic - Nick Clegg is a good example of this.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Alte, your argument is original but doesn't accurately describe the history.

    Do I at least get an "E" for effort? I wrote that over breakfast this morning, and it took me quite a bit of brainpower to come up with such a reasoned and impassioned response, regardless of the historical accuracy.

    At any rate, the problem with such liberals is that autonomy is only true autonomy if it isn't forced or influenced by the government. Trying to "level the playing field" in order to boost autonomy is a contradiction in itself. Using the state to shield people from the consequences of their actions also goes against autonomy. True autonomy includes the privilege of suffering from the effects of your own stupid decisions and mistakes.

    What such liberals want is not true autonomy but fairness. And fairness is a squishy concept that usually implies that someone is getting away with something they normally shouldn't; that they receive some sort of unfair advantage over their competition.

    I believe in free will, and that individuals should be largely autonomous from the point of view of the state, not larger society. That is an enormous distinction. I am not looking for an absence of power, but a transfer of power.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "If we do it now, of course. If the family completely breaks down, then reducing government would lead to anarchy. That is why socialists like growing government; it weakens all other forms of governance and leadership and helps them consolidate power. Destroy fatherhood, destroy the Church, destroy neighborhoods. Turn everyone into individuals and then they're easier to control and manipulate. They have no where else to turn, no allies to join forces with."

    Very true, no disgreement on this, we certainly should be opposing any further initiatives by the state to further decrease the power of the family or non-state insitutions like churches, otherwise if the system collapses, we won't have any form of organisation to fall back on, and I've cetainly nothing against breaking the government's monopoly over education and welfare for the same reason.

    "But that is not what happened. Classical liberalism (the Founders) gave way to traditional conservatism (Victorian era) and then to progressive liberalism (Modern Era)."

    In the first half of the 20th Century there wasn't a clear political monopoly as there is today. A number of movements were using the state for various ends. Some were social conservative, some were populist, some were scientific conservative, some were hybrid extremes like Nazism and some were socialist or progressive, so to say this was a traditional conservative era is too simplistic.

    World War II and the 60s cultural revolution didn't just destroy traditional conservatism but it also discredited populism and scientific conservatism. This meant only liberalism and socialism survived intact. Subsequently, scientific conservatism is demonised, traditional conservatism has been taken over by a kind of moderate right liberalism and populism has been absorbed or supressed by progressive left liberalism.

    However, in ideological terms, we can say that today's dominant progressive liberalism uses an interpretation (possibly a very contradictory one)of the classical liberal idea of autonomy as the main basis for its ideology.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mike Courtman...I'm not an expert of this era but I'd love to hear your view (or if u have a blog post a link).....this is what I've heard....

    Scientific Conservatism....that was like Teddy Roosevelt being part of the eugenics clubs of the teens to early 1920s. Those arguments about keeping the "Anglo-Saxon" quality to the United States is what helped get the immigration moratorium passed in 1924.

    But then with the rise of the Boaz school and the idea that 'all are equal and if you put them here they will magically be just like us' based on falsified skull data....that then took over the universities and everyone who didn't agree got fired in places like Harvard and the like (with the help of the New York School and their lackies)

    So it was this that doomed 'scientific conservatism'

    Is that it?? Do I have it right?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Franz Boas sorry father of cultural relativism

    ReplyDelete
  19. Scientific Conservatism....that was like Teddy Roosevelt being part of the eugenics clubs of the teens to early 1920s.

    Teddy Roosevelt...
    Josef Mengele...
    Margaret Sanger...

    All the esteemed names of Scientific Conservatism.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Very true, no disagreement on this, we certainly should be opposing any further initiatives by the state to further decrease the power of the family or non-state institutions like churches

    This is precisely where we disagree. You wish to stop things from getting worse, and I desire dramatic reforms. The family and church are already powerless! This is the exact disagreement between classical liberals and traditional conservatives.

    Traditional conservatives want to maintain the status quo (or something similar to it), but for everyone to behave themselves. It is a political policy of Wishful Thinking. That is why they don't have concrete plans for restructuring government. They don't want to actually want to restructure government. They want things to stay the same, but for everyone around them to be whiter and more virtuous.

    Libertarians are constantly criticized because we are the ones with concrete ideas (such as from The Cato Institute) that can be weighed, judged, and critiqued. The traditional conservatives just stand on the sidelines and throw mud at us, calling us "big meanies" or "crazies", without offering up any concrete alternatives. If there are any traditional conservative lists of concrete, detailed, far-reaching, and well-researched reforms, I'd be anxious to see it. Up until now, all I've seen are vague wish lists, and pointless tinkering.

    That is why I am not a conservative: I don't wish to conserve anything. I wish to reform. My brand of Catholicism is so traditional that it is radical. My preferred family structure is so patriarchal that there is no comparison to anything that has existed since the Victorian age.

    A libertarian would say: People will behave themselves when they have some tangible incentive for doing so, or when there are consequences for not doing so. What we have now is a system that rewards people for misbehavior and punishes them for behavior. If we want people's behavior to change, then we have to change the system.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The Cato Institute has concrete plays for downsizing the US Federal government:
    http://www.downsizinggovernment.org


    The Constitution Party (a libertarian party, but not The Libertarian Party) has a defined platform:
    http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

    My personal views are closest to the Constitution Party.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mark,

    I think there might be an issue in your analysis in response to Alte's comment on libertarianism. You mentioned that the C19th wasn't a conservative period, thinkers like JS Mill dominated and traditional conservatives lamented the modern trends. If traditional conservatives of that era opposed the push to urbanisation, democracy/the expanded franchise and the move away from the dominance of God in the Zeitgeist to Scientism and Humanism, does this mean that society at that time still didn't include strong conservative elements?

    What of the famous Victorian morality? What of the strong nationalism? (although nationalism can cut both ways, eg the French Revolutionaries were strongly nationalistic). What of the continuing practical dominance of religion in people's lives? Just because society changed, in accordance with technological innovation and insight, and social pressures, does this not mean that society still retained important conservative elements? Do we have to go back to the middle ages before we can say there was legitimate conservatism? Even during this time there was arguably not strict conservatism as there was division within the church as to which intellectual constructions should dominate, intellectual "trendy" reason (ie Greek philosophy) or the direct unadulterated word of God.

    Are we are doing a disservice if we understand the concept of conservatism too narrowly?

    For instance, can we say the DLP (Democratic Labour Party, a Cathlolic branch of the labour party which broke away in the 50's because of opposition to communist influence within the labour party) is or was a conservative party? This had a strong communitarian and traditional catholic focus. Surely by our definitions we can say that this was conservative?

    ReplyDelete
  23. does this not mean that society still retained important conservative elements?

    Absolutely. I did not mean to suggest that there was no traditionalist element to the West prior to say the 1980s. If that were the case there would be little for me to admire in the Western tradition.

    Liberalism worked its way gradually through Western culture. It did not always seek to go it alone as an ideology. It fused itself with other sources of value and meaning at times, such as Christianity or the aristocratic ethos.

    But after George I purged conservatives from office in about 1710, it's difficult to recognise any time in the West when traditionalism itself was politically dominant. A partial exception might be the reaction against the French Revolution in parts of Europe.

    Liberalism spent much of its early period throwing off the authority of kings and priests. It didn't really even start with "making gender not matter" until the 1850s. Multiculturalism wasn't adopted in most Western countries until after WWII. And liberalism didn't really go it alone as an ideology until some point in the twentieth century.

    So when you go back in time you find much in society that is traditionalist. But the dominant intellectual and political trends "at the top" were liberal, so that politics tended to be framed by liberalism and people were aware that the longer term shifts were liberal ones.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This is precisely where we disagree. You wish to stop things from getting worse, and I desire dramatic reforms. The family and church are already powerless! This is the exact disagreement between classical liberals and traditional conservatives.

    Traditional conservatives want to maintain the status quo (or something similar to it), but for everyone to behave themselves. It is a political policy of Wishful Thinking. That is why they don't have concrete plans for restructuring government. They don't want to actually want to restructure government. They want things to stay the same, but for everyone around them to be whiter and more virtuous.


    Alte, not so. I don't know of any traditionalist conservative who wants to maintain the status quo or who wants things to stay the same.

    Yes, there are classical liberals out there who do advocate for smaller government - but it's nearly always because they have a vision of Economic Man in a free market economy. The younger ones (under 50) don't seem at all concerned with the declining influence of church or family - in fact, they often seem to share the general liberal view that it's progressive for the traditional family and the churches to give way.

    Alte, I wonder if you are making the wrong associations here. People sometimes hear the word "conservative" and connect it to the word "establishment". We've been conditioned to do so over many years because of the way that left liberals like to think of themselves of dissenting outsiders.

    But the establishment is not truly conservative at all. There's a left-liberal wing to the establishment and there is a more right-liberal/classical liberal wing to it.

    I'll write a longer response to your comment shortly.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Mark said,

    "So when you go back in time you find much in society that is traditionalist. But the dominant intellectual and political trends "at the top" were liberal, so that politics tended to be framed by liberalism and people were aware that the longer term shifts were liberal ones."

    I agree with that.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Alte,

    I just looked up the Cato Institute website. Here is its policy statement on immigration:

    "Immigration should be considered an important source of necessary labor for the American economy. Immigration policies should be revised to allow US based businesses liberal access to both high and low-skilled workers.

    Immigration control should be focused on securing our borders from terrorists and criminals. Throughout history, immigration has been an important source of economic and social vitality for the United States, naturally expanding and contracting depending on the available supply of jobs in the US economy.

    Regulating immigration is the responsibility of the federal government, and we should have a comprehensive federal immigration system that promotes family cohesion, economic innovation, economic growth, the rule of law, and secure borders."

    So I was spot on in my observation that classical liberals usually promote a vision of Economic Man alienated from any communal tradition.

    According to the Cato Institute the issue of immigration is to be considered in terms of free market labour transfers; there is no concern at all for issues of national identity, culture or ethnicity.

    ReplyDelete
  27. According to the Cato Institute the issue of immigration is to be considered in terms of free market labour transfers; there is no concern at all for issues of national identity, culture or ethnicity.

    Well, of course I don't agree with that. I don't have to agree with everything they say in order to favor their ideas for shrinking the government. They are a think-tank, not a political party. As I had said, I'm more in line with the Constitution party, as far as politics go.

    My husband is a German engineer, fluent in English, married to an American, with American children. He was quite insulted that he'd have to go through the same immigration process as every other applicant. He had (falsely, it turned out) assumed that he would have some sort of natural advantage, and that the process would be a mere formality. My father even had to sponsor him, as if he were an illiterate refugee from Ghana!

    A friend of ours married a Canadian man. When he applied for a Green Card, they interrogated him like he was some sort of criminal. He had to hire lawyers and everything, because he was self-employed. And they'd been married for three years at the time of application.

    That's all ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Alte we have a big problem in the US with anti-white discrimination.

    My non-citizen Muslim friend got a secret clearance at a top firm when she had a GPA of under 3.0 and had lived in the US for oh since she had been born and didn't feel it necessary to become a citizen until last year when she got engaged to a non-citizen H1B visa. (talk about loyalty to ones country ha!)

    The FBI actually called me but put ME on the spot and the FBI agent was not white. (or anyone from a pre-1960s background which makes a big difference!)

    So...the 'traditional' American nation of the people who resided here before the Ellis Islanders or post-1960s immigration have gotten shit on royally. For two reasons, cheap labor and hatred of the 'original' American nation---this leads to all the conspiracy stuff and the more nasty sites that I read :)

    So what your husband experienced and friend is just the same discrimination all white men are faced with. They probably knew your husband would not vote for the Democrats!! LOL!! :) :)

    P.S.-Loove the Constitution Party! Big supporter of Chuck Baldwin.

    http://www.vdare.com/misc/100609_hoppe.htm

    That's a good article on the Property and Freedom society about limiting government growth and how it's never going to happen :)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Here's another example...

    I knew a Hot sexy Finnish girl was an actress and she went back to Finland for the holidays and the US immigration wouldn't let her back in!!

    Yet with all of my friends from highschool (I should tell you the story of what happened when I said in US Government high school class 'I don't think non-citizens should be eligible for free stuff' the stares were ice cold...I had no idea half the kids were non-citizens or illegal) there were no problems...they all got citizenship like my friend whenever they wanted it a million years later....

    Maybe they only like illegals or H1B visa people?

    And yet I know another actress from Colombia who has never had a problem with immigration. What's the difference? Univision probably has a special visa for those guys...she hops borders all the time...la to mexico, miami to colombia...la to colombia..colombia to miami....hmm..of course la and miami are occupied cities....

    ReplyDelete
  30. The fact that your Canadian friend was self-employed probably was a big "won't vote for democrats" sign to the immigration folks :)

    ReplyDelete
  31. I think multiculturalism in America is a difficult topic. It was originally an offshoot of the civil rights movement. The difference is that the black people back then were actual Americans. Americans whose parents, grandparents, and often great-grandparents where born and raised in the country. Most of them were also Western, in that they learned primarily about American and European history, held only American citizenship (by birth, no less) served in the American military, spoke only English, were Christian, and truly felt like citizens of the country and state they resided in.

    It can also truly be said that "American culture" was strongly influenced by "black culture" and -- to a lesser extent -- "Native American culture", all the way back to the founding. They weren't trying to change the culture they were living in, rather they wanted to become a part of it (a desire which crashed and burned with the growth of the welfare state, unfortunately).

    The people talking about "multiculturalism" are trying to jump on this bandwagon. Similar to Asians flooding into Australia and pointing at the Aborigines and saying, "But you let them in, as well!" They weren't let in; they were here from the beginning, you nitwit.

    As for black Americans, they aren't really profiting from multiculturalism anymore. That ended when the Latinos started pouring in and demanding a piece of the pie. They said, "Look, we're brown too! Don't we also deserve a piece?" But they weren't brown Americans, they were just random brown people who had happened to swim over the Rio Grande to the Land of Plenty.

    Furthermore, when an "affirmative action" choice is made, black people often lose out to African and Caribbean immigrants. That's why such immigrants make up the wealthiest and best-educated ethnic group in America. Even beating out the Asians. It is they who are getting the college placements and government jobs. Most of the native black people who work for the government are in the military, police force, or other defense position. The Africans are pushing papers around and pontificating about "diversity", while the native blacks are dying in Iraq. I've lost two (black) cousins and a close (white) friend over there, so whenever I hear about "the hardships" the Afro-Caribbeans have in securing a tenured position, it makes me want to retch.

    That's why the President's father (and many other top bureaucrats) was an African immigrant, and not a native black man. He came over on a scholarship, not a slave ship. And therefore had an enviable head-start. In contrast, my father was born to a sharecropper, from a long line of Baptist, South Carolina sharecroppers. His ancestors go back to pre-Revolutionary War days. Even further, if you count the Cherokee roots.

    Which is why many black (and Native Americans, as some of my relatives are) people are quite anti-immigrant (although the media tends to ignore this aspect in their call for "diversity"), and are a bit annoyed when they get lumped in with the newbies. Multiculturalism isn't the same thing as "racially diverse". We were plenty diverse before they started pouring over the border and flying into the airports.

    ReplyDelete
  32. More about black Americans and immigration policies:

    http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/2006/article/2085

    http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/001665.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/04/us/04immig.html
    One thing we do know is that, despite their relatively small presence, black immigrants are often the most upwardly mobile ethnic group functioning in the United States today, even more than foreign-born white Americans. For instance, as journalist Clarence Page noted in 2007's "Black immigrants: an invisible model minority," in 2000 "43.8 percent of African immigrants had achieved a college degree, compared to 42.5 of Asian Americans, 28.9 percent for immigrants from Europe, Russia and Canada, and 23.1 percent of the U.S. population as a whole." In 2005, a fifth of Caribbean or Latin American-born blacks in America had degrees. And according to a 2006 study by sociologists at Princeton and University of Pennsylvania, of the black students attending Ivy League colleges, 41 percent were either immigrants themselves or children of immigrants.

    http://www.theroot.com/views/how-illegal-immigration-hurts-black-america
    For the most part, the workplace crackdowns themselves are unremarkable—gaudy, ad hoc things that mitigate America’s immigration problem the way a water balloon might a forest fire. Increasingly however, their immediate aftermaths—in which dozens of eager African-American job applicants line up to fill vacancies—call into question a familiar refrain from the nation’s more vocal immigration proponents: Illegal immigrants do work American citizens won’t. Even former Mexican President Vicente Fox fell victim to the hype, infamously declaring in 2006 that Mexican immigrants perform the jobs that “not even blacks want to do.”

    ReplyDelete
  33. U know Alte I have gone to the pro-white side over the last few years. I feel like starting from NumbersUSA (calling in the switchboard to stop Bush's Amnesty and sending faxes) to Tea Parties it was a gradual evolution for me. Whether that's a good or bad thing....dunnos yet :) I feel like it's the only way I can keep my specific 'identity' in a place like LA. Before 3 years ago I never gave a thought to my personal 'white' (or christian) identity but now I'm really ethnic (and I defend Christianity). :) Funny how that happens!

    I am very well aware of the fact that native African Americans are not the beneficiaries of any of this 'multiculturalism'. Which is why I knock my head repetitively against the wall when certain people get voted into office. Eric Holder is afro-caribbean immigrant as well.

    I agree the US was already racially diverse. People forget that :(

    But the truth is this---it was a white majority country with 'christian' values.

    Now I don't think Civil Rights lead to multiculturalism. I *naively* would like to believe in the anglo-saxon ideal of 'meritocracy' for all---everyone gets a fair shake. Not 'everyone is equal.'

    Eh...I'm not going to get into conspiracies on the 1965 immigration act :) (I can!) Civil Rights was a grassroots movement whereas the 1965 immigration act got snuck through the backdoor.

    I guess my true true point that I've been tap dancing around is....I feel like you are saying your a 'libertarian' because you don't want to defend the status quo....which is code for you don't want to defend a white majority America. Even though you are white whether you admit it or not :) :) (You read manga and listened to punk and ska and are all pro Bavaria!)

    The only reason the doors got shut in the 1924 immigration moratorium is because white people had the balls to say 'we want this country to remain white' and they did. The elite did this mainly through scientific racism arguments-- whether this be moral or not I am not me the judge.

    But then the rise of the 'race and culture and heritage is just a social construct, not biological' came in with the falsities of the Boas school. Then things changed...

    Now there are no arguments to be made against immigration. None. That's why people harp on the illegality of illegal immigrants---it's the only thing left! There is one argument...that this nation is a Christian nation and therefore only Christian immigrants should be let in...but that got dismantled long ago when we lost Prayer in schools, abortion, and keeping Christmas on public grounds.

    The truth is most non-white immigrants are not christian, and don't really give a shit about a cohesive united US. Most are uneducated and the educated ones tend to be slimy (Obama's Indian technology officer Vivek Kundra for example.) All of them are liberals.

    So that is why I feel like you are clinging desperately to the *possibly* dead end of libertarianism. I feel like that's why most white libertarians are clinging desperately to libertarianism! In the hopes that the values of a 'white christian society' will be saved without the people actually going out and saying the words 'European heritage, christian values'

    So yeah...that's how I feel and I feel like all these mental acrobatics to defend libertarianism comes from that :) Sorry!!!

    If whites lose the majority in the US....no amount of libertarianism is going to save this country from becoming the next Brazil.

    ReplyDelete
  34. (oh and p.s.---anyone who thinks hispanics are catholic or christian are mistaken...go to church in LA and see the pagan symbols) Dude I'd scan in the newsletters I get from my catholic church...it's all pro-amnesty, Lady of Guadalupe stuff) Hispanics just use the Catholic Church to help them take over...and get free help and networking)

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Mike Courtman...I'm not an expert of this era but I'd love to hear your view (or if u have a blog post a link).....this is what I've heard....

    Scientific Conservatism....that was like Teddy Roosevelt being part of the eugenics clubs of the teens to early 1920s. Those arguments about keeping the "Anglo-Saxon" quality to the United States is what helped get the immigration moratorium passed in 1924.

    But then with the rise of the Boaz school and the idea that 'all are equal and if you put them here they will magically be just like us' based on falsified skull data....that then took over the universities and everyone who didn't agree got fired in places like Harvard and the like (with the help of the New York School and their lackies)

    So it was this that doomed 'scientific conservatism'

    Is that it?? Do I have it right?"

    Thanks anon, I only have a very rough idea of what went on in the 20 and 30s with the politics surrounding HBD research. I believe their was socialist opposition to some aspects of scientific conservatism in the UK and opposition from the Boaz school did play a part in its decline in the US. In the English-speaking world some offshoots of scientific conservatism like the more difficult to test theories about European sub-races were already falling out of favour by the 1930s, but the easier to test aspects of HBD research such as IQ studies were still alive and well going into WWII

    After WWII anti-HBD pressure intensified and by the time of the 64 Civil Rights Act all HBD research was deemed politically incorrect. This seemed to have a western-wide trend. In New Zealand, for example, the last comparison of Maori and white IQ was conducted in 1963-64.

    I would also point out to HBD research critics that in the English-speaking world the majority of scientific conservatives were very critical about German ideas of Ayran superiority (Aryans weren't accepted as a race by most race researcher outside Germany)before the Nazi's came to power in the 1930s.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Eric Holder is afro-Caribbean immigrant as well.

    If you notice, the left often tends to have African or Afro-Caribbean immigrants as "blacks", while the right tends to have native blacks as "blacks". People like Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, etc. I think that might be because most of them come from the south. The immigrants tend to concentrate more on the coasts.

    I feel like you are saying your a 'libertarian' because you don't want to defend the status quo....which is code for you don't want to defend a white majority America

    No, it's the exact opposite. I read Mark's blog because I share most of his goals, we just disagree on the best tactics and strategies for achieving those goals. This is something we could debate forever, as the proof is in the pudding. We won't know what path is best until and unless one of them is implemented and actually works. As it is now, we're just doing "mental acrobatics", as you say.

    I am confident that, if immigration where closed, and people were left to their own devices -- without "help" from the government -- white people (including my husband and children) would do better than they are now. Black people would probably do better, as well.

    It is true that I don't want to defend the status quo, because I want to defend Western Christian Patriarchy, and that is no longer the status quo.

    My point was that an increasing number of black people (including those I know IRL) are realizing that they'd rather have a white majority than an "other" one. Many of us are so used to whites being "the majority in power" and ourselves being peons, that we've been slow to notice the change.

    Also I think white people were projecting their cultural commonalities with black people onto the newer arrivals. They figured, "Hey, my best friend is a black guy from Chicago, who works with me and attends my church. This guy looks like him. Who cares if he's from Sudan and his wife wears a burka? I'm open-minded!" There was no differentiation made, at all. We were all lumped together as "non-white" in the name of multiculturalism.

    It's happening so fast. White and black Americans have been so busy squabbling over the same piece of apple pie that one of us noticed that the pie was being turned into a taco, or some chow mein.

    Speaking of food, that was actually what woke me up to the whole issue. I was born and raised in Germany, and I always liked living there. I noticed the gradual increase in foreigners, but it didn't bother me. One day, about 10 years ago, I was walking down a pedestrian zone and I realized that there was only one German restaurant left. Everything else had been "foreignized". There was a Turkish Doener place, an Italian restaurant, a Chinese take-out, McDonald's, a sushi bar, ... but only one place to buy German food. And it was overrun with tourists. It was like being a stranger in my own country. I remember just standing in the plaza, turning around, staring in shock, and thinking, "Did I blink?"

    Before 3 years ago I never gave a thought to my personal 'white' (or christian) identity but now I'm really ethnic (and I defend Christianity).

    I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I think that most white Americans didn't think about "ethnicity" before, because they were in such an overwhelming majority that they didn't have to. It is only now, that they are being pushed aside, that they begin to notice their intra-racial similarities. To be honest, all minorities think of whites as an ethnic group already.

    ReplyDelete
  37. As for Hispanics in American Catholicism, I'm a bit fed up with it. At my church in Texas there were some great American parishioners of Mexican descent. But they were in the 2nd or 3rd generation, and they were completely integrated into the parish community. At our church now, the whites, blacks, and Asians attend one mass, and the Hispanics all attend the Spanish mass. They have their own parades, festivals (yes, Guadalupe), etc. It's like they don't want anything to do with us, unless they need something.

    The elite did this mainly through scientific racism arguments-- whether this be moral or not I am not me the judge.

    The morality of it wasn't really the point. The point was, if they think America should restrict immigration to protect their ethnic ties and culture, then they should just say that. Pencil tests, measuring people's heads, and things, just made them look like a bunch of creepy weirdos. Look at South Africa. The people who want the white people out don't try to make up some sort of pseudo-science full of irrelevant minutiae on the primacy of blue eyes. They just say, "Throw them out. They're not wanted. Africa should be for Africans only."

    I actually sometimes empathize a bit with the Afrikaaners. Black Americans have the same problem of being treated like foreigners in the only home that they have. It sucks.

    ReplyDelete
  38. German ideas of Ayran superiority (Aryans weren't accepted as a race by most race researcher outside Germany)before the Nazi's came to power in the 1930s.

    It was total nonsense anyway. The Germans are very diverse. The Bavarians look, speak, and act completely differently than the Friesians, for example. Two completely different ethnic groups. I think white Americans are their own ethnic group, but they're very different from the Swedes, or the Russians. Closer to the Anglo-Germanic contingent, I think, from appearance, habits, language, and culture.

    I don't really understand American concepts of "race", to be honest. I understand ethnicity and blood ties, but race is a sort of categorization that doesn't make much sense to me. I just play along, since I know everyone expects that. But I find it rather meaningless, to be honest. I don't really feel that I have much in common with Cameroonians, after all, so why should we be lumped into one group? Just because my great-great-great-great-(more greats?) grandmother came from there? That's like saying my husband is French because Napolean's army once came through.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Yes they are! My mom can rant for days about the subtleties between Germans! Oooh get her on Eastern Germans and then get her on her Southern German relatives...then start her on the Poles (I heart Poland!!!)

    lol

    ReplyDelete
  40. Okee dokee....here's an example of populist libertarianism versus 'modern lifestyle liberalism'

    Southern California was not heavily unionized or environmentalized....and as a result acres and acres of trac homes were put up and it was overrun by cheap labor...now Southern California sucks.

    Northern California was all snooty and liberal and they passed tons of union laws and environmental laws....the homeowners of Northern California then used the environmental laws to keep up their property values and subsequently keep the lower classes out the neighbhorhoods.
    Which is why Northern Cali has lasted longer then Souther Cali (although now we're just so outnumbered it doesn't matter much.)

    Sooo....that's one example against populist libertarianism.

    I think Seattle is heading towards the 'modern lifestyle liberal' attitude.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Are you sure about libertarianism Alte? I'm sitting here reading some of this stuff and I'm just knocking my head.

    You gotta give me a book or an article to read cuz I am not reading the same libertarian writers that you are. I'm reading the crazy 'the concept of national sovereignty and 'citizenship' is against libertariansm' guys....


    http://www.vdare.com/misc/libertarian_archive.htm

    ReplyDelete
  42. My Random Thoughts on Libertarianism at 2AM:

    The only intelligent thing I can say is that our Founding Fathers definitely weren't libertarians.

    If they were....we wouldn't have democracy to begin with---they wouldn't even have gone for a Federal Government. We'd have a system along the lines of Herman Hoppe's 'natural order' where a natural aristocracy would evolve in 'statelets' and private companies would be in charge of the important things like police.

    I think our Founding Fathers did create a system that matches your idea of libertarianism though :) Simply because they themselves were committed to a small government.

    And this is where my evil racial views come in :) :) My evil racial
    views say "the people make the place---if the people themselves are the types who want small government....the government will be small"
    ----
    Random thought:
    The Swiss have an immigration model where local assemblies determine who can become Swiss. I like that idea.
    -------------

    Basically I agree with all of Alte's comments. I would get rid of public schools and 90% of the stuff government does.....but....going back to Hermann Hoppe's idea of society....

    Would this be practical? Would this be healthy for the coming centuries? Would this protect future generations?

    I say no....not for a few centuries anyways. I think we'd be wiped out by other races/countries/cultures pretty easy. (Mainly the Chinese cuz they are soo conformist and work together as one giant group)

    Self-determination/Libertarianism would lead to a never-ending spiral down of splitting off into smaller and smaller groups. Especially with white people :) We have a history of going at each others throats and destroying entire generations over 'ideas' :)

    One thing that I think would make democracy better would be to vote on whether there should be a federal congress in session at all. Maybe a federal congress on a 'need only' basis would be nice :) So they don't pass random 1965 immigration laws without the people knowing.

    Either way...libertarianism, conservatism, etc etc....Such a radical change to our current system isn't going to happen right now and when it does we may not want to be around for it :)

    I stick to my guns....the biggest fight is immigration and keeping Western European Countries White. We fix that then we can try some experimental 'natural order' type stuff (hey some towns experiment with . But once we lose the majority kiss any of those dreams goodbye.

    Furthermore, I think a more important thing to focus on...which is why I admire Ron Paul...is finance. Hitler and the Third Reich got rid of the central bank..and paid workers for infrastructure projects directly. Thus reducing the role of bankers to nothingness. They lost their power. The Reich also issued debt to citizens directly, further limiting the power of the bankers.

    The US had nationally controlled money in our early years of the US until Lincoln passed the National Banking act.

    I believe the first step towards 'libertarian' type small government would be to rescue our financial system from bankers. Then you could have little 'experiments' with different monetary systems such as the town of Worgl in Austria.

    Anyways so yeah...keep it white and kick out the bankers, then you can experiment with no public schools and such and such without worrying about anarchy breaking out and the Chinese taking you over :)

    ReplyDelete
  43. I'm a libertarian, just not a very radical one. I'm for a radical reduction in the government down to things like national defense, judiciary, etc. I'm not an anarchist.

    As for kicking out the non-whites, obviously I'm against that, as I'd have to leave.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The thing that sort of confuses me about the whole "pro-white" agenda, is that there are already countries with nearly homogenous populations. The Nordic countries, Eastern Europe, Japan, many African countries, etc. But homogenity leads to socialist, secular hedonism (in that order), and therefore to eventual demographic decline. Ethnic (rather than religious or cultural) homogenity only brings a demographic "boost" when the population is limited in size, and living in minority status (such as the American Amish).

    It is heterogenity that discourages socialism, because nobody wants to give money to the odd people living down the street. That is why the most heterogenous countries are the most capatalist, libertarian, and religious.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Alte,

    The most religious countries in Europe in recent times were the Poles and the Irish. That had to do with the Church being identified with the nation. Both countries were ethnically homogeneous. Ireland also had the highest fertility rate in Europe.

    Australia managed to have a high level of ethnic homogeneity, capitalism and an above replacement fertility level for the period 1788 to 1945.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Alte said,

    "That is why the most heterogeneous countries are the most capitalist, libertarian, and religious."

    I think your focus is a bit too heavily influenced by your American example. It is certainly true that America is a very diverse country, and this is one of the reasons why libertarianism is strong there. If you have fairly self sustaining communities with substantial regional differences you're going to be far less open to government (specifically central government) control and interference.

    Consider this though. Government is in part not an end but a means. You have to decide what kind of society you want and Government, as a creation of society, will reflect that. If you want a socially conservative society, government can play a part in that. If you just want "freedom from" all outside interference, eventually authority will come down to the individual and their desires, whatever they may be, and that assuredly will not be a conservative outcome.

    Also the "Dread sovereign" Government is one of the necessary ensures of the individual and societies safety and security. One overarching body, (with sufficient powers) is necessary to ensure that the country isn't broken up by divisions, and also as was stated to help ensure the common good. Also divided countries aren't strong. For good or ill we saw in the C19th and C20th centuries what powerful national governments could do (I'm referring to Napoleon, Hitler et all). To be free you can't ignore the largest players on the block and hope they leave you alone.

    Additionally you supported the encouragement of other institutions in society rather than government. All institutions must eventually come down to the question of their source of authority. For good or ill now we lay our ultimate source of authority in the people. At least with this we can all participate in the democratic process. If you elevate other institutions over government then their authority ultimately has to be examined or questioned as a sufficient basis for authority over everyone. If you say the church should be more influential, then which church? If your employer should be more influential, then it must be recognized their power may not serve all of society.

    None of this is meant to disagree with your proposition that a very large or highly controlling state is detrimental, can be very damaging to an effective social society from which we all draw our strength, or the recognition that the state with many powers ultimately has this potential.

    ReplyDelete
  47. The most religious countries in Europe in recent times were the Poles and the Irish. That had to do with the Church being identified with the nation.

    The Irish were having a civil war until recently, and the Poles looked to the Catholic Church as a force against communism. Now that both countries are at peace, religion is in decline. Their Churches were political forces.

    The separation of Church and State is generally good for the church. Most European countries have state churches, and their pews are empty on Sundays.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Australia managed to have a high level of ethnic homogeneity, capitalism and an above replacement fertility level for the period 1788 to 1945.

    A legacy from the British Empire that has since been thoroughly trashed. At any rate, Austrialians were experiencing great hardship and often living in dangerous conditions. That fuels religiosity. That's over now, though. Not because of immigration, but because wealthy, comfortable, safe people become secular. And secular people don't reproduce.

    Conservatism is coming back because of the immigration.

    ReplyDelete
  49. If you elevate other institutions over government then their authority ultimately has to be examined or questioned as a sufficient basis for authority over everyone. If you say the church should be more influential, then which church? If your employer should be more influential, then it must be recognized their power may not serve all of society.

    I never said that I wanted to elevate other institutions over the federal government. My point is subsidiarity, or the devolvement of powers down to the lowest possible level. The highest power still has the final say (through laws, the courts, the parliament, patents, and defense) on the most pressing subjects. But they wouldn't have a say in as many subjects, as these would be devolved down to a lower institution.

    In that way, I am not really agitating for less government. Rather, for the powers to be spread down the ladder to different governing institutions. All the way down to the nuclear family. This would, as you note, mean that at the lower level the institutions would be more diverse. I consider this a feature, not a bug.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Alte,

    I consider myself a conservative because I want to preserve western (all western but specifically my western) society and I don't see the value in doing away with practical things that have shown their value and that work, like our tradition. Nor do I want to see our society become dysfunctional. Like Mark said I don't think that makes me a "status quo" person.

    Having said that, things like Patriarchy existed in substantial part because they were necessary for society to function at the time. Because of modern technology less things are necessary and therefore more things are up for grabs. This cannot be easily altered. You may enjoy and find invigorating going camping or hunting, but back in the land of modern comforts, you appreciate and see their value, and don't want them to go. What stays and what goes, it seems, will be a continuous “conversation”.

    The value of conservatism today is that many aspects of conservatism ARE necessary. You can't do away with national, racial and communal identity. You can't do away with relations between the sexes. You can't do away with the personal happiness and growth that comes from families and family formation. You said families are powerless today? On the contrary families are the most important institution on earth. They care for, nurture, educate (practically and morally), and provide for the people of tomorrow. No school or government can ever do that effectively.

    As we recognise certain human necessities that have been deliberately ignored or overlooked by progressives, or else find progressive promises hollow, that is where conservatism will be on the march and that is where conservatism is needed. Because there are so many practical values of conservatism, that go right to our very human essence, society will always maintain its conservative memories and roots, it would seem almost no matter what happens.
    .
    If women are unhappy pursuing careers than conservatism is relevant. If our society is in danger of serious break down then conservatism is relevant. If our society is on the verge of becoming unconscionable to its people then conservatism is relevant. If the birth rate and the future course of immigration imperil our very existence, then conservatism will not merely be relevant but will dominate.

    I'm not unhappy to be called a conservative, on the contrary I love it. Its like being called a fireman when the place is burning.

    ReplyDelete
  51. You said families are powerless today? On the contrary families are the most important institution on earth.

    They are the most important institution on earth, but the power is limited to whatever the courts, the "educators", etc. decide. As a mother of 2 autistic children, I can assure you that I mother my children only at their convenience. We have had numerous run-ins with "authorities" that have made this very clear to me.

    I also have multiple male cousins battling for visitation rights in family law courts, who could sing a song about all of the power they have.

    Patriarchy is still very necessary, I assure you. The opposite of patriarchy is feminism, after all. There is no such thing as true, widespread egalitarianism, because egalitarian men are so unnatractive that most women would rather die childless than lie under one. That is what the past 70 years have taught us, if nothing else.

    And I belong to a patriarchal religion.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I'd like to make a point about the left wing state if I may.

    Its incredibly unfortunate that there are a number of "grey" areas in society. Certain types of illness, the divorce courts, mental health. There are of course many others. And the left have just jumped into these areas guns blazing.

    These areas are grey because they don't affect most people most of the time. People don't pay that much attention and so the left have run rampant. Because the zeitgeist is to mind your own business (ie look after yourself, ie liberalism) people haven't been standing up to redress this as it generally affects relatively few people at a time.

    The left have an incredible power to cow opposition, so rather than fight, people usually let them have their way, unless what they're doing is too dramatic (ie it affects too many people at once).

    The general right wing approach is to call them lunatics or power hungry maniacs or something. Then the left just say that you're running a reactionary fear campaign, or else that you're a baddy, and the public, unless they're personally affected, are likely to side with the left on the grounds of fairness, good intentions, an I can't be bothered to disagree approach even though I may not like them, or else a well they do have a lot of power so they must be right, I'll side with the winner, approach.

    If the left manage to overreach they just go back to the drawing board and try again in a more nuanced way.

    How does the left state approach children with a problem? (please remember that I'm not trying to offend you by making the next comment and only repeating a left wing trope). Children have to be managed to a degree by the state because they're the only one's with the competence to do it. As a parent you're too emotional, and probably an idiot yourself. Remember the left state has pitched itself to managing people on the level of people as drug using scum bags. That's their kind of people, dependant, reliant, stupid, pathetic.

    So your average punter will go, ok the state should be involved, that's only fair, and also it doesn't (luckily) affect me.

    Whoever can break this general, if in doubt agree with the left, or I'd better agree with them or I'll be a bad person, ie "cowed" etc attitude, will have defeated them.

    Remember the left have had a long time to build up their arguments. There are bukku academics in their numbers. It'll only be by intellectual street fighting that you can begin to turn it.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Jesse, that's a very interesting comment, and worth developing. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  54. As a parent you're too emotional, and probably an idiot yourself.

    Yes, that's exactly how we were treated.

    Unfortunately for them, we aren't actually idiots, made things difficult for them, and it blew up in their faces. Now they're always very nice to us, but we're moving to private resources anyway. I've had enough of them and their ignorant meddling. My daughter was actually regressing with thier "help", and is doing much better in a private environment.

    But not everyone has our financial, political, or intellectual resources. The state is very powerful and very intimidating.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "My daughter was actually regressing with thier "help", and is doing much better in a private environment."

    That's good to hear. It is terryifying to see the state level their resources against you (and brings up Kafkaesque shudders). I'm very glad you're doing well.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.